Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing exactly what is returned: each die result plus total, highest, and lowest. It could have explicitly noted that results are random per call, but 'roll dice' strongly implies this and the annotations cover the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that leads with the action, then states the output shape, and ends with a brief source attribution. There is no filler, and every part contributes to understanding or trust.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, all-optional, read-only tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description provides the essential behavior and return contents. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'sides' and 'quantity' already have types, defaults, ranges, and descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource—'Roll one or more dice'—and enumerates the distinctive return values (each die result plus total, highest, lowest). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like random_number_generator or coin_flip despite the generic title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is clearly implied: use this when the user wants dice rolls. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would be useful given the large sibling set of random/selection tools. The description leaves the decision to inference rather than providing explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.